Author
Topic: What Separates Catholics and Orthodox the Most (Read 9437 times)

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

It's not really the Pope, per se, rather the fact that one man tried to claim jurisdiction over the whole Church when the Church had never been like that.

Now it really has a lot to do with different dogmas. While we believe essentially the same thing (There is one God, Jesus is His son and God, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary etc), there is much that we do not agree on, such as the filioque, papal infallibility, the teaching of original sin, purgatory, use of 3D icons. I think the main view from the Orthodox side is that of Catholics being schismatic and any dialogue between uniting the two churches always has us losing some part (if not all of) our traditions and Traditions.

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

In my experience, the biggest difference is the way the liturgical cycle is carried out. In theory, the RCC maintains traditions of chant, incense, statues/icons, God-oriented worship, lex orandi lex credendi -- but in the parishes anything goes. Most RC services I've attended are little different from the mainline Protestant services I've attended.

Interestingly, Stashko (perhaps unwittingly) rushed to confirm Ignatius II"s observation that "attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues."

What Attitude...Are we suppose to ignore the truth, and pretend there isn't much separating us i don't think so.. Holy Orthodoxy Has to take a stand and tell it like it is ....Maybe the Ecumenical Patriarch may want to over look things ....

Don't pay attention to the trolls, be they Orthodox or Roman Catholics.

They just want to disturb, call attention to themselves and show off as so very pious...

If Thor says it, it's gotta be right.

As for the differences in attitudes, I'd say the one that calls the attention the most is that RC provides a supranational identity. One is Catholic above, or regardless of nationality, while with the Orthodox their religious and national identity become almost as one. In my opinion, it reflects the fact that the Orthodox Church is truly the One Church, since we believe in the Incarnation of God. Likewise, our religiosity "incarnates" in our other identities, be them our nationality, our ethnicitym, our urban tribe, whatever we see as part of "I" and that is not sin. The RC, being not only a religion, but a global institution, is an institution above countries.

Biblically, of course, we have exactly what we have in the Orthodox Church: the Church of Corinth, the Church of Philadelphia, the Church of Smyrna, etc. etc. Each local church is a holographic image of the whole church. Each "diocese" with its bishop is the whole Church whose universal Fundamental Rock and Head is Christ Himself. The whole Church, in itself, is not one institution, but a community united in faith and in spirit. One communion, one faith, one spirit. And, in human level, locally organized more or less along the lines of human social organization whatever it may be in each age, but with precedence of the local city, occasionally, expanding its jurisdictions to small localities not being able to have a bishop of their own. These bishops meet regionally having a primate among them from the city that is most Orthodox in faith, ecclesiastically traditional and socially relevant to facilitate comunication. And, globally, the bishops reproduce this same arrangement. But the regional and global synods are not bodies in themselves from which the local churches derive their legitimacy. On the contrary, it is the local church, headed by the bishop, that being orthodox in faith and practice, that lends its legitimacy and authority to the synods. A synod is Orthodox, because the bishops there represent Orthodox churches. If there is no Orthodoxy in the base, there won't be at the top.

So, as you can see, although this is sort of jeopardized in this last 20th century, this down-up structure for the institutional aspect of the Church is another difference from the RC whichs is clearly up-down.

« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 04:26:10 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

I do not think Catholics are realistic enough about the state of dialogues between the two Churches. The general impressions I get from many Catholics (half my family is Catholic) is along the lines of: "Orthodoxy is just another lung... it's all political... we'll be reunited soon..." On the other side, the heads of some Orthodox Christians seem ready to explode if you express optimism that the two groups will one day be part of one body again. The impressions I get from these Orthodox is along the lines of: "Catholicism is heretical and lost... the west is lost and in darkness..." (admittedly, I was in this latter camp before).

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

In my experience, the biggest difference is the way the liturgical cycle is carried out. In theory, the RCC maintains traditions of chant, incense, statues/icons, God-oriented worship, lex orandi lex credendi -- but in the parishes anything goes. Most RC services I've attended are little different from the mainline Protestant services I've attended.

I wish there were not true. Sadly, you are correct.

Logged

"And because they have nothing better to do, they take cushion and chairs to Rome. And while the Pope is saying liturgy, they go, 'Oh, oh, oh, filioque!' And the Pope say, 'Filioque? That-uh sound nice! I think I divide-uh the Church over it!'" - Comrade Real Presence

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

Well, I think that it's pretty hard to say "apart from the Pope", because authority is one really big issue. What is not always seen is what flows from these differing views of authority are very different ecclesiologies, i.e., conceptions of the nature of the Church. For the Orthodox, the fullness of the Church exists in every local Church, that is, in every diocese headed by a bishop. For Roman Catholics, this would represent just one "particular" church, and the whole Church is seen as all the dioceses all over the world under the authority of the Pope, who is seen in a very real way as a "bishop of bishops." I think it's interesting that this is also connected to the different ways in which the East and the West understand the term "Catholic". For the East, this term usually means something akin to "full" or "fullness", whereas the West interprets it as meaning "universal".

At Vatican II, the Roman Church re-introduced a more collegial and Eastern view of the nature of the Church into Her thinking on the matter (although many would argue, not in a way that really substantially changed positions affirmed at Vatican I) so that now ISTM there is an uneasy marriage of the two views current in Roman Catholic practice.

I would also have to say, that, from the Orthodox perspective, Scholasticism (a very particular and systematic way of looking at theology first appearing in the twelfth century) is unfortunately unacceptable. Orthodox theology insists on gaining true knowledge of God first and foremost through the nous (often incorrectly translated as "the mind" and incompletely but somewhat helpfully as "the heart") the organ spoken of by the Fathers that allows us to interpret knowledge in an intuitive and supra-rational way. The Orthodox wholeheartedly embrace the idea that one must use one's mind (and indeed all the senses and faculties, we are not anti-intellectual or anti-anything else!) to lead us to God, but the nous must have preeminence. We are concerned that the West has gone too far down a path of rationalism and arrogated too much prominence to the human intellect, where man may sometimes (not always, of course) be making God in his own image, so to speak, instead of the reverse. For the Orthodox, a true theologian remains one who prays. (I am sure that this idea is not foreign to many Catholics also!)

I am sorry if some of this seems too polemical, but it is sometimes necessary to make points like this in order to honestly distinguish what genuine differences might exist between us.

Union with the RC as it is now is no union, but just falling from the Tree of Life.

For a union to be true, I have already suggested a list of attitude and punctual changes elsewhere. Here it is again:

What I would expect from a *true* union would be:

From the Orthodox:

Apologize for and a more outspoken condemnation of phyletism;

Acknowledgemnt that the multi-culturalism of RC is the traditional way;

Acknowledgment that the role of the primate is more than just honorific;

Abandon the idea of infallibility of Councils; councils can and have stated heresies, they can and have been reproached by other elements of the Church;

Use the expression "through the Son" after "proceeds from the Father" instead of nothing;

Deal with excessive anti-rationalism;

Translate traditional liturgical rites and use them instead of foreign language rites;

(Just added)Organize itself in canonical terms around the world: one city - one bishop; Archdioceses, Metropolias, Eparchies and Patriarchates are not the institutional church per se, but the local diocese is. Supra-diocesical institutions such as Archdioceses, Metropolias, Eparchies and Patriarchates have an *assistive* role for communication and organization of the local churches. The concept is that "The National Association of Hospitals" is a necessary important institution, but it is not a hospital. Each hospital has its own head-doctor and administrator who is the bishop. The Patriarch or Metropolitan is a head doctor of his own hospital, and the "President" of the "National Association", not a kind of "top-head-doctor" that can interfere in every hospital. His authority over the other head-doctors is while members of the National Association, not as head-doctors of their own hospitals.

From the Roman church:

Apologize for and abandon the concept of infallibility of the Pope; popes can and have stated heresies, they can and have been reproached by other elements of the Church;

Abandon the monarchical model of primacy. Even if it was fit for Modern West (Medieval to Pre-WW I period) it was unfit for the East during the same period. The primate did not act as archpastor if he chose a model that was fit to just half the Church;

Use the expression "through the Son" instead of "and of the Son" after "proceeds from the Father";

Acknowledge that the Immaculate Conception is a theologumen and not a dogma;

Deal with excessive rationalism and emotionalism;

Translate traditional liturgical rites to local languages and use them instead of "modern" rites;

Allow married men to become priests;

Give the Most Pure Blood of Christ in Communion to lay people as well;

Statues are not a problem per se; yet, church imagery is not just decoration, they are tools of healing and should follow some rules. Church art cannot be over expressive, it should not immitate the body realistically, etc. etc. Church statues should be 3D icons. The artistic depictions of the West though can and should be preserved and developed, but as art, not as the tools of the hospital that is the church;

(just added)Abandon the excessive formulation of "Co-Mediatrix";

From both sides:Reasses their lists of saints and devotions;Become more active in the world;Emphasys on ascetic life as the proper Christian life;Stop condescending with worldly fashionable ideologies;Stop condescending with criminal and/or immoral clergy;Nor separation, nor union with the State: symphony when the State is not Anti-Christian, and outright vocal opposition when it is, if not from the people oppressed under such regimes, but from their brothers elsewhere;Focus on Christ above all and on saints above celebrities;

« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 05:02:59 PM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Another excellent post, Fabio! I found myself nodding in agreement throughout.

I wonder if another source of the conflict is simply the whole West vs. East mentality - notice the uneasiness several here have expressed about the whole concept of Western Rite Orthodoxy - and in our church there are still plenty of Latin Rite folks who are suspicious of Eastern Rite Catholics (yes - even more so than stashko!!! ).

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

The following has been taken, without any of my own comments, from a book by Father Bunge called "Dragon's Wine and Angel's Bread. The Teaching of Evagrius Ponticus on Anger and Meekness."

Pages 72-74, SVSP[St. Vladimir's Seminar Press], 2009

Quote

Father Bunge: The demons, then, are opposed not only to the virutes in that they tempt us to their contrary vices but also in the domain of theology to the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

monk Evagrius: In this way wherein I have walked they hid for me a snare: Our enemies lay a trap in all the virtues. In courage they conceal the snares of cowardice; in prudence, those of fornication; in love they lay the snares of hatred. Into meekness, they instill arrogance; into compassion, a mercifulness not for God's sake but for the sake of the onlooker...And indeed what must one still say about contemplation and how many snares the ehemies have laid through heresies against Orthodox teaching.

Father Bunge: Heresies are therefore not mere dogmatic errors, comparable to scientific errors, but rather the work of demons in the heads of those who hatch them or fall to them. Evagrius assures us that he has even experienced this in his own life.

Only those whose spirit has been previously blinded by the demon of anger and who have incurred the loss of the divine light of knowledge are susceptible to such demonic blindings...As we have seen above, the demonic thought blinds the soul's left eye, which is devoted to the contemplation of the created...Evagrius' notion is still thought provoking: That moral defects, without fail, have consequences in the domain of knowledge and spiritual contemplation; and conversely that every kind of heresy is not simply an intellectual failure, but a work of the demons in the ones they have previously blinded through the vice of anger.

How different church history would look, had all those involved in dogmatic disputes taken greater care to beware the signs of anger. And not only then, when with supposedly holy zeal, they took to the field against alleged or actual false teachings but also in all those conflicts that have led to divisions within the Church. Evagrius is convinced that the schisms of Church history as well are nothing else than the work of demons, and above all the demon of anger.

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

It's not really the Pope, per se, rather the fact that one man tried to claim jurisdiction over the whole Church when the Church had never been like that.

Now it really has a lot to do with different dogmas. While we believe essentially the same thing (There is one God, Jesus is His son and God, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary etc), there is much that we do not agree on, such as the filioque, papal infallibility, the teaching of original sin, purgatory, use of 3D icons. I think the main view from the Orthodox side is that of Catholics being schismatic and any dialogue between uniting the two churches always has us losing some part (if not all of) our traditions and Traditions.

We should explore this more:

What does Orthdoxy have to give up in order to enter into a resumption of communion of the west?

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

It's not really the Pope, per se, rather the fact that one man tried to claim jurisdiction over the whole Church when the Church had never been like that.

Now it really has a lot to do with different dogmas. While we believe essentially the same thing (There is one God, Jesus is His son and God, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary etc), there is much that we do not agree on, such as the filioque, papal infallibility, the teaching of original sin, purgatory, use of 3D icons. I think the main view from the Orthodox side is that of Catholics being schismatic and any dialogue between uniting the two churches always has us losing some part (if not all of) our traditions and Traditions.

We should explore this more:

What does Orthdoxy have to give up in order to enter into a resumption of communion of the west?

Mary

Our entire ecclesiology. The only way to be in communion with the West is to be in communion with Rome. The only way to be in communion with Rome is to accept the pope as the Supreme Vicar of Christ, infallible ex cathedra, etc. As Western history clearly shows, to give Rome such a strong central position is to open the Church to a hotbed of heresy and schism.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

IMO the Pope's role is the only real difference dividing what's sacramentally the same church. But both sides' hardliners are right that it's a doozy. The only way to union is for RCs to become WRO or Orthodox to become Greek Catholics. Ain't gonna happen, right?

Quote

If there is no Orthodoxy in the base, there won't be at the top... this down-up structure for the institutional aspect of the Church is another difference from the RC which is clearly up-down.

I think I agree. I can't prove this is related to that big issue but in nearly 20 years of following this stuff ISTM the big difference is between a down-home parochial (in the good sense, not the bad one of 'narrow') grassroots traditionalism (which you also sometimes see in RC ethnic groups) versus the feel of a big, cold institution. Like your sweet little mom-and-pop shop vs Wal-Mart. I get a whiff of the latter even from Greek Catholic churches. So I think I understand why an Orthodox fears that while Greek Catholicism, 'Orthodoxy with the Vatican glued on top' (as convert Brendan Ross, who passed through Greek Catholicism, called this notion of union), seems to work on paper, and I like Greek Catholics very much, in practice it would turn Orthodoxy into ethnic quasi-Novus Ordo like the Greek Catholics are now. (Union = one side ceases to be, really.)

(The idealised, liturgically Orthodox Greek Catholicism that Rome actually teaches doesn't much exist and its likewise rare cousin, 'Orthodoxy in communion with Rome', is dishonest, denying RC teachings like a personally conservative version of the AmChurch liberals.)

Which leads to the huge difference between Orthodox worship and modern RC worship (which the ecumenical trendies either don't talk about or praise - !!):

Except liturgical mainline Protestants - Anglicans and Lutherans - often have better taste and don't hate traditional practice - chant, incense, statues/icons, God-oriented worship, lex orandi lex credendi - like Irish-American RCs often do (read Thomas Day). The trouble with them of course, or why I'm not an Episcopalian for example, is they're Protestants: even if one of them happens to agree with us on the creeds and sacraments and worships as we do, they belong to denominations with fallible, changeable doctrine by vote (the Lutherans don't think bishops are necessary; the Anglicans and Lutheran liberals have women bishops and soon gay weddings).

That said, my favourite kind of American Orthodoxy is probably pierogi, rust-belt OCA and ACROD because it feels so Catholic but with the difference I described. (The Polish National Catholic Church is like that too but it never made theological sense, has always had theological radicals like universalists running it and now its worship is essentially a Novus Ordo clone.)

Quote

What I would expect from a *true* union would be:

From the Orthodox...

Stop selling out on contraception and go back to universal Christian teaching before 1930; it's not just an RC thing.

On that note, give RC moral theology a chance such as the distinction between mortal and venial sin (a help for the scrupulous, sort of the OCD of spirituality) and guides based on the Ten Commandments to examine your conscience to go to confession (such as in the nice 1800s-early-1900s westernised Slav Orthodox manuals based on Greek Catholic ones).

Quote

Translate traditional liturgical rites and use them instead of foreign-language rites.

They already do. Do you mean use modern Greek and Russian instead of mediæval Greek and Slavonic?

Quote

I do not think Catholics are realistic enough about the state of dialogues between the two Churches. The general impressions I get from many Catholics (half my family is Catholic) is along the lines of: "Orthodoxy is just another lung... it's all political... we'll be reunited soon..."

Fabio, while I don't agree with everything that you have said, I have to say your approach to dialogue is impressive, and free from the anti-western polemics that we often see in the netodox extremists. . You are certainly not who I thought you were when you first started posting here. Thank you for another well thought out, reasonable post.

Union with the RC as it is now is no union, but just falling from the Tree of Life.

For a union to be true, I have already suggested a list of attitude and punctual changes elsewhere. Here it is again:

What I would expect from a *true* union would be:

From the Orthodox:

Apologize for and a more outspoken condemnation of phyletism;

Acknowledgemnt that the multi-culturalism of RC is the traditional way;

Acknowledgment that the role of the primate is more than just honorific;

Abandon the idea of infallibility of Councils; councils can and have stated heresies, they can and have been reproached by other elements of the Church;

Use the expression "through the Son" after "proceeds from the Father" instead of nothing;

Deal with excessive anti-rationalism;

Translate traditional liturgical rites and use them instead of foreign language rites;

(Just added)Organize itself in canonical terms around the world: one city - one bishop; Archdioceses, Metropolias, Eparchies and Patriarchates are not the institutional church per se, but the local diocese is. Supra-diocesical institutions such as Archdioceses, Metropolias, Eparchies and Patriarchates have an *assistive* role for communication and organization of the local churches. The concept is that "The National Association of Hospitals" is a necessary important institution, but it is not a hospital. Each hospital has its own head-doctor and administrator who is the bishop. The Patriarch or Metropolitan is a head doctor of his own hospital, and the "President" of the "National Association", not a kind of "top-head-doctor" that can interfere in every hospital. His authority over the other head-doctors is while members of the National Association, not as head-doctors of their own hospitals.

From the Roman church:

Apologize for and abandon the concept of infallibility of the Pope; popes can and have stated heresies, they can and have been reproached by other elements of the Church;

Abandon the monarchical model of primacy. Even if it was fit for Modern West (Medieval to Pre-WW I period) it was unfit for the East during the same period. The primate did not act as archpastor if he chose a model that was fit to just half the Church;

Use the expression "through the Son" instead of "and of the Son" after "proceeds from the Father";

Acknowledge that the Immaculate Conception is a theologumen and not a dogma;

Deal with excessive rationalism and emotionalism;

Translate traditional liturgical rites to local languages and use them instead of "modern" rites;

Allow married men to become priests;

Give the Most Pure Blood of Christ in Communion to lay people as well;

Statues are not a problem per se; yet, church imagery is not just decoration, they are tools of healing and should follow some rules. Church art cannot be over expressive, it should not immitate the body realistically, etc. etc. Church statues should be 3D icons. The artistic depictions of the West though can and should be preserved and developed, but as art, not as the tools of the hospital that is the church;

(just added)Abandon the excessive formulation of "Co-Mediatrix";

From both sides:Reasses their lists of saints and devotions;Become more active in the world;Emphasys on ascetic life as the proper Christian life;Stop condescending with worldly fashionable ideologies;Stop condescending with criminal and/or immoral clergy;Nor separation, nor union with the State: symphony when the State is not Anti-Christian, and outright vocal opposition when it is, if not from the people oppressed under such regimes, but from their brothers elsewhere;Focus on Christ above all and on saints above celebrities;

Fabio, while I don't agree with everything that you have said, I have to say your approach to dialogue is impressive, and free from the anti-western polemics that we often see in the netodox extremists. You are certainly not who I thought you were when you first started posting here. Thank you for another well thought out, reasonable post.

99% great and helpful responses. Please keep them coming. it is appreciated where differences can be discussed in an intelligent manner. I am very pleased to see such a constructive discussion. I definitely want to hear both sides, and get an honest and respectful interchange. it helps us all to stand in someone else's shoes. This is a great learning experience for me.

Is it possible to agree to disagree on the Pope, Filioque, (un)leavened bread, how the Liturgy/Mass is handled, and still be in communion? In 1965 the excommunications of 1054 were rescinded by Pople Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras. It's been 956 years. It's time for the East and West to quit fighting. There has already been some dialog. We need to continue to do so.

Is it possible to agree to disagree on the Filioque, (un)leavened bread, how the Liturgy/Mass is handled, and still be in communion?

The filioque's been dealt with: it means through the Son and the official RC version of the creed in Greek never had it. The rest are only matters of discipline and culture so yes. (But the difference between Orthodox and modern RC worship is too much. WRO looks like and sometimes is the Tridentine Mass: old RC worship.)

In 1965 the excommunications of 1054 were rescinded by Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras. It's been 956 years.

One side didn't 'leave the church' in 1054; it was a gradual estrangement in the Middle Ages. 1054 was between two ex-papal legates overstepping their bounds and the Patriarch of Constantinople. So the nice gesture in 1965 was only symbolic (excommunications don't apply to the dead anyway); it didn't end the split.

It's been 956 years. It's time for the East and West to quit fighting. There has already been some dialog. We need to continue to do so.

The more I think about it, the more I think reunion all round won't happen. Ecumenism's big accomplishment is that the various Christians understand each other better and mostly aren't trying to kill each other any more. That's as far as it goes.

I think the right term is 'zero-sum game': the two one true churches either keep existing side by side or one gives into the other.

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

Orthodox Christians are asking Roman Catholics to become Orthodox once more. Roman Catholic want Orthodox Christians to accept their Theology and Liturgical practices as equally valid.

In response, Orthodox Christians are now actively involved in ecumenical dialogue to more expediently "develop" Roman Catholic Theology into Orthodox Theology, or basically to de-evolve it to the Patristic Theology that the Church has always held.

At the present moment, it seems that the Roman Catholic response to this is to de-emphasize theological language that contradicts Orthodox Theology and gloss over historical beliefs that are at odds with Orthodox Christians. The idea is to make the Papacy "work" within Orthodox Theology by essentially agreeing to not practice it with Orthodox Christians.

A partial repudiation of Roman Catholic Theology will not "work". Only becoming Orthodox will.

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

It's not really the Pope, per se, rather the fact that one man tried to claim jurisdiction over the whole Church when the Church had never been like that.

Now it really has a lot to do with different dogmas. While we believe essentially the same thing (There is one God, Jesus is His son and God, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary etc), there is much that we do not agree on, such as the filioque, papal infallibility, the teaching of original sin, purgatory, use of 3D icons. I think the main view from the Orthodox side is that of Catholics being schismatic and any dialogue between uniting the two churches always has us losing some part (if not all of) our traditions and Traditions.

We should explore this more:

What does Orthdoxy have to give up in order to enter into a resumption of communion of the west?

Mary

The west only had one Patriarch, and so the Eastern way of Autocephaly may seem foreign. And when you add the strange western concept of cardinals, then it will make our two different views of ecclesiology hard to reconcile.

Sometimes I wonder what would of happened if the council of Nicea 1 or Chalcedon added another western patriarchate. Like one in southern Gaul or in Carthage in North western Africa.

Such a thing would of allowed the west to share in the same style and ethos of ecclesiology as the Christian East.

And it would make unity today a whole lot easier. As it stands now......it is either we submit to the bishop of Rome or the Bishop of Rome submits to Orthodoxy.

I think the most realistic way, is just simply looking at how things were within the first 1,000 or first 1,250 years and just agreeing to differ on things that made us different back then.

Both sides need to know what makes us different as well as the same before true unity can happen. And now that we live in a very educated age........the laity as well as the clergy of both sides need to know about the differences and similarities of how we were in the past and how we are now in the present.

« Last Edit: October 24, 2010, 10:22:21 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

I would dare to say that the majority of Orthodox theologians and bishops would not accept the use of unleavened bread.

Quote

(But the difference between Orthodox and modern RC worship is too much. WRO looks like and sometimes is the Tridentine Mass: old RC worship.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Tridentine rite is not the great cure-all that many rather romantically suppose it to be, and conversely the Novus Ordo (when served properly) is not the great ogre that many claim it is. I don't deny that there are problems with the Novus Ordo that are not acceptable, but when served well with good music (sadly an admittedly rare event) I will take it any day over the heavily clericalised Tridentine Mass.

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

It's not really the Pope, per se, rather the fact that one man tried to claim jurisdiction over the whole Church when the Church had never been like that.

Now it really has a lot to do with different dogmas. While we believe essentially the same thing (There is one God, Jesus is His son and God, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary etc), there is much that we do not agree on, such as the filioque, papal infallibility, the teaching of original sin, purgatory, use of 3D icons. I think the main view from the Orthodox side is that of Catholics being schismatic and any dialogue between uniting the two churches always has us losing some part (if not all of) our traditions and Traditions.

We should explore this more:

What does Orthdoxy have to give up in order to enter into a resumption of communion of the west?

Truth, IOW Orthodoxy herself.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Union with the RC as it is now is no union, but just falling from the Tree of Life.

For a union to be true, I have already suggested a list of attitude and punctual changes elsewhere. Here it is again:

What I would expect from a *true* union would be:

From the Orthodox:

Apologize for and a more outspoken condemnation of phyletism;

Acknowledgemnt that the multi-culturalism of RC is the traditional way;

Acknowledgment that the role of the primate is more than just honorific;

Abandon the idea of infallibility of Councils; councils can and have stated heresies, they can and have been reproached by other elements of the Church;

Use the expression "through the Son" after "proceeds from the Father" instead of nothing;

Deal with excessive anti-rationalism;

Translate traditional liturgical rites and use them instead of foreign language rites;

(Just added)Organize itself in canonical terms around the world: one city - one bishop; Archdioceses, Metropolias, Eparchies and Patriarchates are not the institutional church per se, but the local diocese is. Supra-diocesical institutions such as Archdioceses, Metropolias, Eparchies and Patriarchates have an *assistive* role for communication and organization of the local churches. The concept is that "The National Association of Hospitals" is a necessary important institution, but it is not a hospital. Each hospital has its own head-doctor and administrator who is the bishop. The Patriarch or Metropolitan is a head doctor of his own hospital, and the "President" of the "National Association", not a kind of "top-head-doctor" that can interfere in every hospital. His authority over the other head-doctors is while members of the National Association, not as head-doctors of their own hospitals.

From the Roman church:

Apologize for and abandon the concept of infallibility of the Pope; popes can and have stated heresies, they can and have been reproached by other elements of the Church;

Abandon the monarchical model of primacy. Even if it was fit for Modern West (Medieval to Pre-WW I period) it was unfit for the East during the same period. The primate did not act as archpastor if he chose a model that was fit to just half the Church;

Use the expression "through the Son" instead of "and of the Son" after "proceeds from the Father";

Acknowledge that the Immaculate Conception is a theologumen and not a dogma;

Deal with excessive rationalism and emotionalism;

Translate traditional liturgical rites to local languages and use them instead of "modern" rites;

Allow married men to become priests;

Give the Most Pure Blood of Christ in Communion to lay people as well;

Statues are not a problem per se; yet, church imagery is not just decoration, they are tools of healing and should follow some rules. Church art cannot be over expressive, it should not immitate the body realistically, etc. etc. Church statues should be 3D icons. The artistic depictions of the West though can and should be preserved and developed, but as art, not as the tools of the hospital that is the church;

(just added)Abandon the excessive formulation of "Co-Mediatrix";

From both sides:Reasses their lists of saints and devotions;Become more active in the world;Emphasys on ascetic life as the proper Christian life;Stop condescending with worldly fashionable ideologies;Stop condescending with criminal and/or immoral clergy;Nor separation, nor union with the State: symphony when the State is not Anti-Christian, and outright vocal opposition when it is, if not from the people oppressed under such regimes, but from their brothers elsewhere;Focus on Christ above all and on saints above celebrities;

This sounds interesting, but there are certain points that appear contradictory, e.g., the statement that the role of the "primate" is more than simply honorific, while later there is a long paragraph that seems to say that various structures within the Church (e.g., Metropolias, Patriarchates, etc.) only have an assistive role to the local bishop.

That said, I accept the latter presentation as fully Orthodox, but the former seems to contradict that stated position.

Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality." St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."St. Theodore Studite

it's not an all or nothing dichotomy. Think of any "National Association" that may come to your mind. The National Association of Lawyers for example. The president of that association has some real power. But this real power is not "universal jurisdiction", that is, the president of the National Association cannot come to your legal practice and actually run it. But, as president of the Association, he *will* have decisive influence in some issues that will concern all practices around the country.

The problem is that in RC the Church is run as one big diocese - and, truth be said, it was just a diocese before universal jurisdiction claims started to be made. In fact, that is what the RC is: one big inflated diocese.

Archdioceses, Metropolias, Eparchies, Patriarchates and, ultimately, the Primal instance, were meant to be simply more encompassing synods for regions (Arch. Metr. and Eparc.), bigger regions (Patriarchates), and global, the Primate.

It's exactly the common sense, instinctive organization most Associations have. A "Municipal Association of X", a "State Association of X", a "National Association of X" and an "International Associantion of X".

There is real authority in presiding any of this, but this authority is never "universal jurisdiction".

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

The issue of the nature of God's energies is pretty big.

Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com

As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, the horrific actions of the Italian invasion of Ethiopia done with the blessing of the Pope is a huge obstacle. The fact that such an evil act could be done with the Pope's "blessing" indicates to me that the Church of Rome cannot be the Church of Christ.

I also think the actions of the Roman Pope in 1054 were demonically induced. I cannot believe that the Holy Spirit was behind such an act of arrogance, presumption, and division.

That being said, I have many dear Catholic friends who I believe are sincere and good Christians, just as I have many Protestant friends who I also believe love Our Lord. But I do not think that Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy can ever be reconciled. I believe that the Orthodox Church is the apostolic Church, and that all Christians must return to their mother.

Those are my humble thoughts, FWIW.

Selam

« Last Edit: October 25, 2010, 02:41:35 AM by Gebre Menfes Kidus »

Logged

""Love is a dangerous thing. It will crush you if you trust it. But without it you can never be whole. Love crucifies, but love saves. We will either be saved together with love, or damned alone without it." Selam, +GMK+

I would dare to say that the majority of Orthodox theologians and bishops would not accept the use of unleavened bread.

Sorry but IMO that's just dumb if it's considered doctrine (see above on defined doctrine) and not just liturgical discipline, in which they're right; it doesn't belong in the Byzantine Rite (the yeast has liturgical symbolism).

The filioque's been dealt with.... (But the difference between Orthodox and modern RC worship is too much. WRO looks like and sometimes is the Tridentine Mass: old RC worship.)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Tridentine rite is not the great cure-all that many rather romantically suppose it to be, and conversely the Novus Ordo (when served properly) is not the great ogre that many claim it is. I don't deny that there are problems with the Novus Ordo that are not acceptable, but when served well with good music (sadly an admittedly rare event) I will take it any day over the heavily clericalised Tridentine Mass.

Have you been to traditional Russian worship (not necessarily in Russia)? I have, in big-city immigrant cathedrals in New York and London, and it's just like mediæval Western Catholicism. The clergy behind the screen are doing their thing ('heavily clericalised', whispered prayers and all, just like the Tridentine Mass) and the laity theirs, their devotions, walking around lighting candles at shrines, popping in and out of the service. (Lots of Greeks and Russians don't stay for the whole thing all night at Easter.) So this trendy-sounding criticism of the Tridentine Mass doesn't hold up.

A Pope Benedict-style 'Reform of the Reform' conservative NO like you describe is OK; an approximation of a good liturgical-movement congregationally sung Tridentine Mass (which wouldn't have the problems you complain of), but the latter is better.

Quote

in RC the Church is run as one big diocese

You'd have thought with that, in theory, tight control, Rome could have ridden out the '60s with only minor attrition (priests and nuns running off and marrying/becoming sort of hippies, and laity dropping out and tuning into the changes in the larger culture, on a much smaller scale than actually happened) while the Orthodox got squashed by the Communists and all but disappeared in the West, as the immigrants' families assimilated, or liberalised into a mainline denomination. But that's not what happened. Orthodoxy is shrinking in the West as I describe but it didn't disappear, and the only creeping mainline-ification is the sellout on contraception; they're where Protestants were in the '50s on that, plausible and conservative: 'you can't use it to shirk having children for ever; ask your clergyman'. Rome's holding the apostolic line on it: no way, no how. But again the Orthodox haven't defined the error as doctrine (so Rome gives the Orthodox the benefit of the doubt) and their traditional cultures are not contracepting ones (as a pious born Orthodox told me, if you follow the fasting rules on sex it's a kind of natural family planning, periodic abstinence like Rome teaches).

Quote

As an Ethiopian Orthodox Christian, the horrific actions of the Italian invasion of Ethiopia done with the blessing of the Pope is a huge obstacle. The fact that such an evil act could be done with the Pope's "blessing" indicates to me that the Church of Rome cannot be the Church of Christ.

What about imperial Russia's track record going to war with other Christian countries? The Italian invasion of Ethiopia was nothing to do with theology (Mussolini was really an old lefty atheist who once in power made peace with the church to help his image and stay in power) and the Pope's alleged approval wasn't a matter or religious doctrine or discipline. No sale on your argument.

You'd have thought with that, in theory, tight control, Rome could have ridden out the '60s with only minor attrition (priests and nuns running off and marrying/becoming sort of hippies, and laity dropping out and tuning into the changes in the larger culture, on a much smaller scale than actually happened) while the Orthodox got squashed by the Communists and all but disappeared in the West, as the immigrants' families assimilated, or liberalised into a mainline denomination. But that's not what happened. Orthodoxy is shrinking in the West as I describe but it didn't disappear, and the only creeping mainline-ification is the sellout on contraception; they're where Protestants were in the '50s on that, plausible and conservative: 'you can't use it to shirk having children for ever; ask your clergyman'. Rome's holding the apostolic line on it: no way, no how. But again the Orthodox haven't defined the error as doctrine (so Rome gives the Orthodox the benefit of the doubt) and their traditional cultures are not contracepting ones (as a pious born Orthodox told me, if you follow the fasting rules on sex it's a kind of natural family planning, periodic abstinence like Rome teaches).

Good stream of consciousness. But I'll have to attain to just a point: that Rome is run as a big diocese does not imply necessarily an authoritarian rule. It allows for it, but it is not innevitable. Just look at the various Orthodox dioceses. They have the "face" of their bishops. Some are very authoritarian, others are more participative (and I'm not saying that one model is holier than other). In Rome, because it is one big diocese, it depends on historical moods and the character of each pope. In Orthodoxy, no historical phase, nor character of the bishop can affect the *whole* church at the same time, at that is how it has preserved its faith. As high as corrupt or heretic Patriarch can get, he will never be able to affect the whole church. In Rome, it just takes one to take things off the rails. "Infallibility" came precisely to blur the perception of that: a Pope will never say a heresy, because what the Pope says is what defines orthodoxy. And if it contradicts what some Pope has said in the past, than, it is because you are a mean, evil person. Rome's words are Rome's and they can mean whatever Rome wants whenever Rome wants. So, obviously, all popes of the past meant exactly what the current pope is saying even if their words "seem" to be contradictory.

In Orthodoxy we simply admit that this or that Patriarch was heretic, that he made a mistake and go on with our lives. Infallibility belongs to the Holy Spirit Who protects us and guide us toward the faith of the Apostles whenever someone tries to distort it.

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

I think St Robert Bellarmine covered that: as the Pope can't invent new doctrine, as in overrule defined doctrine (so the liberals won't get their way on mainline protestantising the RCC), if one tried to (turned heretical: 'the Eucharist is just bread and wine; women can be priests; two men can marry'), then ipso facto he wouldn't be Pope any more. But I hear you. The Pope catches a cold and the RCC gets pneumonia: Paul VI lost his nerve in the '60s and by 1970 you had dopey pseudo-hippie services replacing the Tridentine Mass and its style almost everywhere. Compare to the Orthodox rejecting Patriarch Cyril's (Loukaris) Calvinist opinions at one point (I understand he repented later).

I think St Robert Bellarmine covered that: as the Pope can't invent new doctrine, as in overrule defined doctrine (so the liberals won't get their way on mainline protestantising the RCC), if one tried to (turned heretical: 'the Eucharist is just bread and wine; women can be priests; two men can marry'), then ipso facto he wouldn't be Pope any more. But I hear you. The Pope catches a cold and the RCC gets pneumonia: Paul VI lost his nerve in the '60s and by 1970 you had dopey pseudo-hippie services replacing the Tridentine Mass and its style almost everywhere. Compare to the Orthodox rejecting Patriarch Cyril's (Loukaris) Calvinist opinions at one point (I understand he repented later).

That is just a circular argument because the proof that what he is saying is not new doctrine is the fact that he, being infallible, said it.

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

Aside from the obvious issues of the Pope and the filoque, what issues or attitudes (coming from either side) do you feel separate Catholics and Orthodox the most, and prevent them from having a common faith. Sometimes I feel attitudes are the bigger barrier and can be more of a hindrance than actual faith issues.

It's not really the Pope, per se, rather the fact that one man tried to claim jurisdiction over the whole Church when the Church had never been like that.

Now it really has a lot to do with different dogmas. While we believe essentially the same thing (There is one God, Jesus is His son and God, Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary etc), there is much that we do not agree on, such as the filioque, papal infallibility, the teaching of original sin, purgatory, use of 3D icons. I think the main view from the Orthodox side is that of Catholics being schismatic and any dialogue between uniting the two churches always has us losing some part (if not all of) our traditions and Traditions.

We should explore this more:

What does Orthdoxy have to give up in order to enter into a resumption of communion of the west?

Mary

Our entire ecclesiology. The only way to be in communion with the West is to be in communion with Rome. The only way to be in communion with Rome is to accept the pope as the Supreme Vicar of Christ, infallible ex cathedra, etc. As Western history clearly shows, to give Rome such a strong central position is to open the Church to a hotbed of heresy and schism.

Well I must say that I am happy to hear that, to date, eastern Christendom has not been plagued by heresy or schism. You'll have to let us heterodox in on your little secret...

IMO the Pope's role is the only real difference dividing what's sacramentally the same church. But both sides' hardliners are right that it's a doozy. The only way to union is for RCs to become WRO or Orthodox to become Greek Catholics. Ain't gonna happen, right?

Yes. Father Bunge's perspective on Evagrius is instructive.

I don't see where we can come together without finding some jurisdictional arrangement that is quite different from what we see now, and what we've seen in the past that has not worked well. I am always puzzled by the lack of vision that is evinced on all sides. Surely the ultras on either side will weep and moan but I should think that the rest of us could find a way to express both traditions.

It's not really circular because he doesn't have unlimited power; he can't overrule past Popes on doctrine.

Not formally. But when "apparent" contradictions are found, the standard response is that what the previous popes meant by those words is what the current pope is saying. We know that he is right because he said it, and we know they meant what he is saying, because he said it.

Logged

Many energies, three persons, two natures, one God, one Church, one Baptism.

You'd have thought with that, in theory, tight control, Rome could have ridden out the '60s with only minor attrition (priests and nuns running off and marrying/becoming sort of hippies, and laity dropping out and tuning into the changes in the larger culture, on a much smaller scale than actually happened) while the Orthodox got squashed by the Communists and all but disappeared in the West, as the immigrants' families assimilated, or liberalised into a mainline denomination. But that's not what happened. Orthodoxy is shrinking in the West as I describe but it didn't disappear, and the only creeping mainline-ification is the sellout on contraception; they're where Protestants were in the '50s on that, plausible and conservative: 'you can't use it to shirk having children for ever; ask your clergyman'. Rome's holding the apostolic line on it: no way, no how. But again the Orthodox haven't defined the error as doctrine (so Rome gives the Orthodox the benefit of the doubt) and their traditional cultures are not contracepting ones (as a pious born Orthodox told me, if you follow the fasting rules on sex it's a kind of natural family planning, periodic abstinence like Rome teaches).

Good stream of consciousness. But I'll have to attain to just a point: that Rome is run as a big diocese does not imply necessarily an authoritarian rule. It allows for it, but it is not innevitable. Just look at the various Orthodox dioceses. They have the "face" of their bishops. Some are very authoritarian, others are more participative (and I'm not saying that one model is holier than other). In Rome, because it is one big diocese, it depends on historical moods and the character of each pope. In Orthodoxy, no historical phase, nor character of the bishop can affect the *whole* church at the same time, at that is how it has preserved its faith. As high as corrupt or heretic Patriarch can get, he will never be able to affect the whole church. In Rome, it just takes one to take things off the rails. "Infallibility" came precisely to blur the perception of that: a Pope will never say a heresy, because what the Pope says is what defines orthodoxy. And if it contradicts what some Pope has said in the past, than, it is because you are a mean, evil person. Rome's words are Rome's and they can mean whatever Rome wants whenever Rome wants. So, obviously, all popes of the past meant exactly what the current pope is saying even if their words "seem" to be contradictory.

In Orthodoxy we simply admit that this or that Patriarch was heretic, that he made a mistake and go on with our lives. Infallibility belongs to the Holy Spirit Who protects us and guide us toward the faith of the Apostles whenever someone tries to distort it.

Fabio: this is an excellent point. There is real lasting value in a loose federation that is not readily apparent. That is the real reason why we have such a thing as the Mind of the Church, while Rome's equivalent concept boils down to the Mind of the Pope, who is the Church.

IMO the Pope's role is the only real difference dividing what's sacramentally the same church. But both sides' hardliners are right that it's a doozy. The only way to union is for RCs to become WRO or Orthodox to become Greek Catholics. Ain't gonna happen, right?

Yes. Father Bunge's perspective on Evagrius is instructive.

I don't see where we can come together without finding some jurisdictional arrangement that is quite different from what we see now, and what we've seen in the past that has not worked well. I am always puzzled by the lack of vision that is evinced on all sides. Surely the ultras on either side will weep and moan but I should think that the rest of us could find a way to express both traditions.

How are you? We've shot sparks over time. Forgive me for those times.

Mary

I really cannot see how we can have a super-bishop alongside regular bishops in a united Church. papal supremacy and infallibility ARE the two things that are separating us. We can come to an agreement on all other differences but to do this y'all must shed these two concepts. You see, not only are they wrong in themselves, that also prevent your Church from coming to an agreement on all else.

As noted, the ecclesiology of the two is fundamentally at odds. The manner and nature of the definition and reception of doctrine is different as well. There is also the matter of the Fourth Council of Constantinople.